Oh my god… whoever wrote this comic, right on! I recently cut one of these “nice guys” out of my life for good. I felt really guilty for a while, but something about our friendship felt so wrong. In hindsight I can finally see how manipulative he was. Of course, he would never see it that way, because he hasn’t done anything wrong! Of course not, he’s so NICE! He truly respects women! It’s just that women, bless their silly little hearts, CHOOSE to date jerks.

I agree that the nice guy/jerk dynamic is false. It is misdiagnosed. The real problem is the introvert/extrovert dynamic. Women are socialized to respond to “confidence” which is socially constructed from extroverted (and masculine) traits. Thus you get a lot of introverts (who through more feminine traits are written off as “nice”) who feel unfairly ignored.

Not all extroverts are jerks, obviously and not all introverts are nice. It is entirely possible most jerks are extroverts with all their douche-y pride.

First of all, I take issue with your generalization, ‘Women are socialized to respond to “confidence”‘. Women are individuals who happen to be female, and some women like confidence, while others dislike arrogance.

The Nice Guy™ is defined as someone who thinks of himself as “nice” by his own definition, while he is actually pretending to be “nice” to get laid. It is “pretending”, because if he didn’t think it might get him laid, he wouldn’t do it. Thus, Nice Guy™ is also a jerk, a manipulative one.

Nice Guys™ aren’t even necessarily introverted, since they have enough social skills to act like a friend and mimic friend behaviour.

Not all women respond to socialization similarly, but I still think the socialization exists…just as men are socialized to like certain things. In each case it does not produce uniform preferences but may well skew the distribution of preferences. And what I’m saying is that this is probably a better explanation for why this whole conversation came about.

Anyway, by your definition of Nice GuyTM, I agree entirely, but I also think that guy doesn’t exist to any real extent in the real world. I do think a lot of guys exist who aren’t jerks or manipulative who are friends because they do truly appreciate the emotional bond with a woman while hoping that it will become more. And though they may struggle at times with desperate feelings that they’d be better than who she dates or times where they imagine their own happiness without regard to hers, but I think this is fairly normal human frailty, not being a jerk.

Or I guess to put it more concisely, the friendship is not a means to the end of sex (as implied in the claim of manipulation), it is just a suboptimal end. By acting like your version of Nice GuyTM is common, you give into so many negative, condescending stereotypes about male behavior that I think mislead more than illuminate.

P.S. Introverts are capable of being friends with people…good friends even. They might not be capable of acting but then I don’t think people in this scenario generally are acting.

I would be wary of generalizing from one post at craigslist. If you look at the xkcd comments, you see a lot of people identifying with the story more broadly, but not a lot of people expressing the idea that they expected physical intimacy in exchange for their friendship.

Yes, in the xkcd comments, many people identify with the person in the xkcd comic. The person in the xkcd comic is a Nice Guy™. Note that his plan is thus: “Bit by bit, I’ll make you depend on me. […] And in a moment of weakness and loneliness, you’ll give in.”

Randall is satirizing the Nice Guy™, but too many male xkcd readers miss the satire, and miss the punchline in the last panel: “But he doesn’t respect you!” Hint: It is ironic, because when he socially manipulates his female friend, he does not respect her. He is a hypocrite.

In general the best we can do in making predictions about the world is extrapolate from our experience to date. You end up underestimating variation that you haven’t seen or heard of, but it’s still a good strategy.

Another reason might be that the men can only get what they want if the woman is a particular way, so they should take their changes and work *as if that were true*, because if it’s not they’re screwed anyway.

“Is the girl’s friendship not worth anything?”

Probably worth something, but not as much as sex.

“Maybe the girl wants honesty, not fake-friends.”

Maybe she does want a male friend who doesn’t want to have sex with her, in which case they are both certain to be dissatisfied, which is sad.

I would see this as a regrettable disco-ordination of preferences. Both sides want something different from their interactions with the other – if they don’t mind providing what the other wants they can trade and both get what they want. If they do dislike providing what the other wants, they need to change their preferences or find someone new to interact with who they can get more benefit from.

If you break it down to its base element it’s not clear that either of them is doing anything wrong:

Man wants A but not B, woman B but not A, the man is willing to trade B for A but the woman unwilling to trade A for B.

Shame that the man wants to trade B for A and is disappointed! But also a shame that the women is unwilling to trade A for B.

In general the best we can do in making predictions about the world is extrapolate from our experience to date. You end up underestimating variation that you haven’t seen or heard of, but it’s still a good strategy.

But Nice Guy (TM) has little-to-no experiences with women, and his “extrapolation” is actually extrapolation from fairy tales. In fairy tales, if you do X, you get the girl, so Nice Guy (TM) thinks real women work like that.

Another reason might be that the men can only get what they want if the woman is a particular way, so they should take their changes and work *as if that were true*, because if it’s not they’re screwed anyway.

I don’t understand this sentence.

Man wants A but not B, woman B but not A, the man is willing to trade B for A but the woman unwilling to trade A for B.

Shame that the man wants to trade B for A and is disappointed! But also a shame that the women is unwilling to trade A for B.

No.

Man does not tell woman that he wants A. Man pretends that he wants B, so woman gives him B.

“Man does not tell woman that he wants A. Man pretends that he wants B, so woman gives him B.”

I think it’s implied in the comic (and is the case in real life in my experience) that the woman knows what he wants and is simply reluctant to settle for him (being a low status male).

Even if this were not true, it is hardly normal for people to be up-front about these things. Maybe if this man were very high status he could get away with demanding what he wants right away, but he is not and can’t, so I feel sorry for him.

“But Nice Guy (TM) has little-to-no experiences with women”

By experience I meant all evidence – and fiction and stereotypes are weak forms of evidence. If you’re right and he has little first-hand experience, then this is the best he can do.

I think it’s implied in the comic (and is the case in real life in my experience) that the woman knows what he wants

No. The comic is satirizing Nice Guy (TM), who never reveals his true intentions.

and is simply reluctant to settle for him (being a low status male).

Even if this were not true, it is hardly normal for people to be up-front about these things. Maybe if this man were very high status he could get away with demanding what he wants right away, but he is not and can’t, so I feel sorry for him.

This is such a typical male geek comment.

You’re using “animal” psychology as a model for women’s psychology, when you don’t even know enough about women’s/human psychology to justify the comparison, and you’re also assuming that there is a universal “animal” psychology.

These type of comments proliferate in online geek communities, because there are not enough women to object, and women who see these insulting comments are repelled by them and these communities. However, male geeks like this explanation, so they respond positively, creating a nice insular bubble of self-perpetuating groupthink.

Thanks for link to Nice Guy, I had never heard of this character – but the point isn’t whether he deliberately reveals his desires but whether the woman can infer them (and in my experience people are very sharp at picking up on these things).

“you’re also assuming that there is a universal “animal” psychology.”

Somethings most animals have in common (almost all species are more attracted to healthy partners, or partners with a higher Resource Holding Potential, etc), some things they don’t (attraction to size, aggression, etc), but it’s just not true I’m saying they’re all the same – it depends on the environment they evolved in.

I have plenty of experience with women – I am a geek, but not the reclusive, unconfident or antisocial kind.

I agree geeks can get out of control with their models of women, but I don’t think I’ve said anything particularly controversial:

* Very attractive men can get away with approaching women more aggressively.
* Controlling for other traits, women on average like more confident men.
* Geeks who lack confidence sometimes struggle to attract women and it’s not clear they’d be more successful being up front, if they could not cover their nervousness.

Thanks for link to Nice Guy, I had never heard of this character – but the point isn’t whether he deliberately reveals his desires but whether the woman can infer them (and in my experience people are very sharp at picking up on these things).

No. Right now, there’s this guy who acting really nice to me, and I can’t figure out if he’s a Nice GuyTM or just a nice guy. His behaviour is really ambiguous, but if I assume he’s a disingenuous Nice GuyTM and he’s really a genuinely nice guy, then I would be a pretty rotten person. So I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s just a genuinely nice guy.

This study shows that women who want one night stands tend to choose attractive men. It then mentions another study that showed women who are looking for a fling tend to choose men with masculine features which indicate high testosterone, but women who look for long-term mates choose men with more feminine facial traits.

I’m aware of these studies mentioned, and I have no problem with the findings, but I take issue with the extra leaps in logic that you make. I don’t think that evolutionary psychology is fundamentally wrong—for example, I believe that when people search for food when they are hungry, there is an evolutionary reason for their behaviour. However, most of those popular and high-profile evolutionary psychology speculations are ridiculous.

I agree geeks can get out of control with their models of women, but I don’t think I’ve said anything particularly controversial:

* Very attractive men can get away with approaching women more aggressively.

I don’t disagree with this, but I disagreed with you saying “high-status males”.

* Controlling for other traits, women on average like more confident men.

Where is the evidence?

* Geeks who lack confidence sometimes struggle to attract women and it’s not clear they’d be more successful being up front, if they could not cover their nervousness.

More othering.

Male geeks need to realize that their physical appearance has a huge affect on whether or not they are perceived as attractive. Physical attractiveness probably has a larger effect than “confidence”, as least for me, and for all the heterosexual women I talk to when we discuss guys.

So enough with the geek put-downs.

I wasn’t even talking about geeks. I was talking about male geeks, specifically heterosexual male geeks.

No. Right now, there’s this guy who acting really nice to me, and I can’t figure out if he’s a Nice GuyTM or just a nice guy. His behaviour is really ambiguous, but if I assume he’s a disingenuous Nice GuyTM and he’s really a genuinely nice guy, then I would be a pretty rotten person. So I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s just a genuinely nice guy.

See, I disagree with Robert’s claim about allowing inference as well. I do think the guy has a responsibility to let her know he would be interested in more. I’ve had multiple times now where I have and still maintained the friendship emotionally when she wasn’t interested. I could certainly be guilty of hoping (though not expecting) she would change her mind, but at least the chips are on the table.

Male geeks need to realize that their physical appearance has a huge affect on whether or not they are perceived as attractive. Physical attractiveness probably has a larger effect than “confidence”, as least for me, and for all the heterosexual women I talk to when we discuss guys.

There was an interesting post at the okcupid blog based on ratings. Women rated men a whole lot more strictly than men rated women. For all the flak men have gotten as being too focused on physical appearance and being shallow and having too high of standards, it seems that women are at least or more guilty on this account…which you basically admit to in this quote. That said, I’m not sure I agree (just because you talk about A doesn’t mean A is more important because B might be acting subconsciously). Plus, physical attractiveness is often conditioned on non-physical attributes (like “confidence”). That they are confident makes them look better to you (this is certainly true for me when I establish an emotional bond with someone, they are more attractive).

Re ‘can she tell': whenever women have been nice to be because they’ve wanted to sleep with me, I’ve been able to tell this very quickly – it is hard to hide. And conversely whenever I have been nice to women to sleep with them, they have been able to tell pretty much immediately. Now perhaps I just move in circles of bad actors, but I suspect it’s just really hard to hide your motivations when you have so much contact.

Re othering: obviously I was talking about the male geek communities you described.

Re ‘can she tell’: whenever women have been nice to be because they’ve wanted to sleep with me, I’ve been able to tell this very quickly – it is hard to hide. And conversely whenever I have been nice to women to sleep with them, they have been able to tell pretty much immediately. Now perhaps I just move in circles of bad actors, but I suspect it’s just really hard to hide your motivations when you have so much contact.

Most of that is about “paternity confidence”, and the part about ev psych basically say that if you assume that ev psych is true, then women will be attracted to men who display self-confidence. However, this would be a circular argument, if you are trying to use what ev psych predicts as evidence of the ev psych explanation being true.

Anyway, I assume that there are other studies about this, but do they control for men’s preferences in women? Don’t men prefer smiling women to frowning women, for example? Perhaps people in general avoid people who look like they have emotional problems and it has nothing to do with procreation?

I might missinterpret what this is about, but beeing a male in a nerdy position I think it’s quite frustrating to hear women always talk about how they want an ‘exciting’ man. Apparentley this exciting is to be intepreted, extrapolating from their chocices as beeing emotionally unstable, never wishing to amount to anything in life, thinking that the greatest way to spend a weekend is getting wasted on friday, spending the saturday nursing a hang-over, getting more wasted on a saturday and spending the sunday getting back to working shape. Apparentley spending the weekends with exercise or trying to further one’s knowledge is ‘nerdy’ and ‘unexciting’.

And yes, I have personally received comment from the very same women, that since I have been single for a decade I must be defective, since everyone who is worthy of having relationships manages to develop them. I have also received comments from the very same group of women that I should climb back into my dungeon. I apparently am not worthy of a relationship, since women have already decided that I must be defective. Had I been worthy of having a relationship with a women, I would have developed one.

I might missinterpret what this is about, but beeing a male in a nerdy position I think it’s quite frustrating to hear women always talk about how they want an ‘exciting’ man.

I’ve never heard of this. Is it from TV?

beeing emotionally unstable, never wishing to amount to anything in life, thinking that the greatest way to spend a weekend is getting wasted on friday, spending the saturday nursing a hang-over, getting more wasted on a saturday and spending the sunday getting back to working shape.

This is hilarious. Why would anyone want a partner like that? Do you actually think women go hunting for men with these qualities?

And yes, I have personally received comment from the very same women, that since I have been single for a decade I must be defective, since everyone who is worthy of having relationships manages to develop them. I have also received comments from the very same group of women that I should climb back into my dungeon. I apparently am not worthy of a relationship, since women have already decided that I must be defective. Had I been worthy of having a relationship with a women, I would have developed one.

Are you sure they used this language, or did you bring up worthiness? Having a relationship with someone you are attracted to is not a right, but a privilege. The universe does not owe you a girlfriend.

From HBI “In short: I like men who remind me of myself. They’re complex, difficult, unpredictable at times. It’s hard to stay with them. And no, they haven’t been classic “jerks.” It’s just not that simple.”

“This is hilarious. Why would anyone want a partner like that? Do you actually think women go hunting for men with these qualities?” How would I know, I am not in pursuit of such a partner, ask the women who pursue them.

“Are you sure they used this language, or did you bring up worthiness? Having a relationship with someone you are attracted to is not a right, but a privilege. The universe does not owe you a girlfriend.”

Yes, this was the exact wording, the discussion regarded a group of women who complained that there was no single men in their social circle, a simple suggestion that a visit to a local technical college probably would result in a large number of single men resulted in that exact answer. That the guys there that were single were single because they were too weird and too nerdy.
No, the universe doesn´t owe anyone a girlfriend, you have as much a right to say no as I have. But there is a gigantic difference between saying things like ‘No, I am not interested’ and saying ‘No, no one will ever be interested, return to your dungeon and never bother anyone of us again’.

From HBI “In short: I like men who remind me of myself. They’re complex, difficult, unpredictable at times. It’s hard to stay with them. And no, they haven’t been classic “jerks.” It’s just not that simple.”

Do you read the quotations you quote? She likes men who remind her of herself, and she happens to be complex, difficult, and unpredictable. Oh, I forgot. You think one woman represents all women, because you think all women are the same and interchangeable. It’s as if only the important part about women is the pussy.

Yes, this was the exact wording, the discussion regarded a group of women who complained that there was no single men in their social circle, a simple suggestion that a visit to a local technical college probably would result in a large number of single men resulted in that exact answer. That the guys there that were single were single because they were too weird and too nerdy.

But they didn’t mention worthiness.

No, the universe doesn´t owe anyone a girlfriend, you have as much a right to say no as I have. But there is a gigantic difference between saying things like ‘No, I am not interested’ and saying ‘No, no one will ever be interested, return to your dungeon and never bother anyone of us again’.

What’s your relationship to these women? Were they strangers on the subway having a conversation amongst themselves, and you jumped in and offered your advice?

“Do you read the quotations you quote? She likes men who remind her of herself, and she happens to be complex, difficult, and unpredictable. Oh, I forgot. You think one woman represents all women, because you think all women are the same and interchangeable. It’s as if only the important part about women is the pussy.”

Do I need to look at every single zeebra in the world to hold it very likely that a zebra will be black and white striped?

“But they didn’t mention worthiness.”
They did, if you are going to obsess about the word ‘worthiness´ then no, what was said was that the men that were single were so because they were the leftovers those who were not attractive.

“What’s your relationship to these women? Were they strangers on the subway having a conversation amongst themselves, and you jumped in and offered your advice?”

Do I need to look at every single zeebra in the world to hold it very likely that a zebra will be black and white striped?

Do you understand the quotation? She said that she preferred men who were similar to herself, and she self-identifies as a “heartless bitch”, and describes herself as “complex, difficult, unpredictable”.

Is it so hard for you to understand that people prefer a partner with similar qualities to themselves, and that people—even women!—are diverse in terms of personalities?

Did you read the rest of the references i provided?
There were numerous examples of women saying basically the same thing.
I respect every person’s right to be attracted to whomever they please, but please be honest about preferences. Don’t say one thing and do another.

A zebra is a zebra. Depending on your culture you might have a different word for it, but it’s physical properties don’t change. Keep in mind that the word and any ideas you may have associated with it are independent of it’s real physical traits. Most everyone will agree that a zebra is a zebra. Your interpretation of your ‘nerdy’ situation doesn’t ring to me anything like your analogy.

‘No, no one will ever be interested, return to your dungeon and never bother anyone of us again’.

That’s your interpretation. If you really feel anything like that, don’t you think that it would have some bearing on your encounters?
I know this one guy who does that all the time. It drives me nuts. 1 girl in the mall will specifically ignore him, which then becomes an occasion to say how superficial girls are. 1 girl here, 1 girl there (your zebra analogy) etc etc. The mall being full of women with probably 90% of them not even knowing we’re even there(as if they should when there’s so much shopping to do..I kid), but all of them somehow mysteriously being just like that 1 girl.. All this when he’s too afraid to even talk to any of them to find out if it’s true! Of course, his extrapolation (bias would be more truthful) was proven by that 1 lady. So the 1(maybe a total of 10 for his current lifetime) girl is the cause of his extrapolation and the proof of it. What kinda sense is that.

“Apparentley this exciting is to be intepreted, extrapolating from their chocices as beeing emotionally unstable, never wishing to amount to anything in life, thinking that the greatest way to spend a weekend is getting wasted on friday, spending the saturday nursing a hang-over, getting more wasted on a saturday and spending the sunday getting back to working shape. Apparentley spending the weekends with exercise or trying to further one’s knowledge is ‘nerdy’ and ‘unexciting’.”

You might want to examine what it means to be emotionally unstable.. I’m not saying that you’re emotionally unstable, just that it would be profitable to really find out what that means outside of the stereotype before throwing it around.

And what to you would be ‘unexciting’? Are you looking for a woman to exercise on weekends and gain more knowledge with?

side note: I’ve met plenty of women who don’t like ‘predictable’ guys. Which of course doesn’t mean that you try and be unpredictable – that would still be predictable.
Maybe ‘nice’ guys tend to be predictable??
Personally, I think a person with a singular ambition to have nothing but fun is boring. The same thing with a person who wants nothing more than to improve intellectually. Those type of people in my limited experience are very predictable. Not that predictability is bad or boring in most cases.
Any thoughts, Restructure!?

“That’s your interpretation. If you really feel anything like that, don’t you think that it would have some bearing on your encounters?”

That was what was said. Or more specifically what was said was. ‘The guys there that still are single must be single for a reason. Probably because they are too nerdy’.

‘What kinda sense is that.’

‘Personally, I think a person with a singular ambition to have nothing but fun is boring. The same thing with a person who wants nothing more than to improve intellectually. Those type of people in my limited experience are very predictable. Not that predictability is bad or boring in most cases.’
Doesn’t everyone want to have a relationship that is meaningfull? I.e. beeing in a relationship with a person that you enjoy spending time with? Perhaps even, might I dare suggest someone you like so much that you are happy because that person is happy?
I have no trouble going partying from time to time, or ballroom dancing or so on. What bothers me is this attitude that a weekend not being wasted, is a weekend wasted.
Well, in my case, when you get to girl 200 who says just the same thing, you start to be able to conjecture.

I wish there was a such thing as a guy who was nice to a woman out of honest love instead of wanting to get laid.

But I’ve sort of figured out that there is no such thing as a guy who is actually nice. As in, he isn’t full of himself and he doesn’t date a girl just to fuck her… Wait! I know ONE guy who treats women respectfully!! But he turned out to be gay :)

The “nice guy” interpretation so often touted on feminist sites is really a straw man. What they’re saying is that a guy who acts friendly and gentlemantly towards a woman is automatically a creep who’s only looking to get into her pants. There is no possibility that he’s looking for love, affection, a relationship, as everyone else is, and trying to get it the only way he knows how, the way he’s been taught by the media, romantic movies and well-meaning mothers, and being hurt and disappointed when it doesn’t work. Nope, they’re monsters. Enjoy beating up on the straw man, it’s not like anybody needs to learn anything or grow as long as we’ve got some easy target to snark on.

Nope, you are strawmanning. A Nice GuyTM is not just a guy who acts nice to a woman, but a guy who acts nice to a woman and expects something (sexual/romantic) in return.

You should think about how this hurts the woman (who is treated like an object instead of a person), not just focus on how it hurts the man so much that he can’t “get the girl”. I mean, you aren’t even learning at all if you think only the man’s feelings matter and that only the man has agency.

“A Nice GuyTM is not just a guy who acts nice to a woman, but a guy who acts nice to a woman and expects something (sexual/romantic) in return.”

I’m confused then, how is that any different from a normal romantic relationship? Any man who’s interested in a woman (and vice versa) will do things to get her attention and expect her to hopefully reciprocate. I don’t go out of my way to do nice things for strangers I care nothing about, and I doubt many people do.

Unless you’re saying that the Nice Guy(TM) misrepresents himself as a friend when he actually has romantic/sexual feelings that he’s too afraid to share, as the comic seems to say. I still don’t see what’s so horrible about that, honestly. Lots of people are shy, and lots of relationships started out as friendships. The comic’s author seems to say it’s wrong for a girl to choose a guy who loved her and had always been there for her, because she didn’t feel the “fires of passion” right away with him (there is no mention of the scenario when the fire goes out within a few months, leaving her in an unhappy or outright hostile relationship, as happens so many times in real life). So instead she decides to date someone who’s a jerk, by her own admission. As if that’s the better solution.

I just think nice guys are unfairly maligned, and the amount of hate and venom heaped upon them by certain individuals is ridiculous. Lots of young men are shy and lack the confidence to declare their romantic feelings for a woman right away, so they develop a friendship hoping it’ll lead to something more. But apparently that’s a horrible thing to do. Hey, next time I see a girl I like, I’ll just go up to her and say “nice shoes, wanna fuck?” I’ll let you know how it goes. :)

The big issue isn’t that he expects something in return, but that he feels he’s OWED something in return. Nice Guys treat getting a girl like a math problem. “Me+girl+attention=dating/fucking” When the Nice Guy gets rejected, he doesn’t think, “I guess she wasn’t interested”, he thinks “What a bitch”. Personally, I don’t think this comic makes the point too well, but it does show the Nice Guy having some sense of entitlement–“She should be dating me!”–without any real consideration of the girls feelings.

The difference between a nice guy and a Nice Guy isn’t actions so much as it is attitude.

If he feels entitled to have her as a girlfriend with no consideration for her feelings then yeah, that’s bad. But this point isn’t being made too often or too well, and genuinely nice guys who may just be shy or reserved in nature will come online and see nothing but hate and ridicule which they’ll perceive as being directed at them (not so much from this site, there are worse ones out there). The explanation is usually “oh, but we’re only talking about a SPECIFIC kind of Nice GuyTM who’s really a creep”… usually followed by “but if you feel offended, you probably ARE one of them!” It doesn’t help that the people most intent on bashing the nice guys seem to have their argumentation mode stuck on “personal attacks and insults” regardless of how politely anyone disagrees with them.

So then what’s a Nice Guy to do? If being friends is a no-no (and who wants to be stuck in the Friendship Zone, anyway?) then a direct approach should work. But then why does every dating site and ‘expert’ out there tell you to establish a friendship first, get to know her, that a woman will be scared off if you confess your feelings for her right away, and so on? The “jerks” I know personally who are successful with girls, either won’t take no for an answer, or play the numbers game. If those are the only solutions, it seems that nice polite guys are doomed to either become jerks or join a monastery…

I suspect the trick is not going waaaaaay too long into the “dating now would be awkward” phase. I’ve certainly dated guys I’d met just that day–it wasn’t an ‘I like you” kind of thing, more of an “Hey, wanna go out for coffee” kind of thing. Avoid coming on too strong (Like the “OMG will you marry me” thing geek girls get sometimes–that’s just overkill) but do be direct about wanting more.

I have one guy friend I ‘liked’ in high school, but he wasn’t interested in me that way back then. In college he did express interest, but by that point I’d known him too long–it was just weird.

Crap, I have more I’d like to say, but I can’t quite articulate it right now and I have class. I’ll be back later, maybe.

Restructure: Wow, it’s too bad the comments section is closed on that post because I’d have had a few things to say to the author and some of the people who commented. They’re doing exactly what I talked about earlier: building a straw-man effigy of the Nice Guy as they envision him, give him the worst possible motivations and inner monologue (by interpreting some frustrated guy’s admittedly iffy post in the worst possible way), just so they can tear him down. And anyone who disagrees is met with the equivalent of a chorus of monkeys screeching and flinging their crap at the ‘intruder’, with the blog’s author leading the pack. It’s like they are more interested in hating on the Nice Guy and attacking him than having an actual discussion, which pretty much tells you something about their personalities. Valerie Solanas would be proud.

By the way, here’s an article from the Onion which is meant as humor but I think pretty accurately describes the situation from the girl’s point of view:

Okay, with some time to think, things basically come down to this–for a relationship to move past ‘just friends’, someone has to suggest it. And since there’s no guarantee that the thought has crossed her (or his) mind, be sure to put it in there yourself. Just because you’re looking at this person as a potential significant other, doesn’t mean they are looking at you the same way. So you want to get the idea out there before it becomes too unpalatable (assuming it isn’t already–sorry guys, sometimes we’re just not interested in you that way).

And speaking as someone who is rather dense when it comes to social cues, don’t expect the other person to pick up on things. That’s just asking for a letdown.

Restructure: Wow, it’s too bad the comments section is closed on that post because I’d have had a few things to say to the author and some of the people who commented. They’re doing exactly what I talked about earlier: building a straw-man effigy of the Nice Guy as they envision him, give him the worst possible motivations and inner monologue (by interpreting some frustrated guy’s admittedly iffy post in the worst possible way), just so they can tear him down. And anyone who disagrees is met with the equivalent of a chorus of monkeys screeching and flinging their crap at the ‘intruder’, with the blog’s author leading the pack. It’s like they are more interested in hating on the Nice Guy and attacking him than having an actual discussion, which pretty much tells you something about their personalities. Valerie Solanas would be proud.

This is the key quote from that link:

I’m breaking that paragraph in two, because that statement deserves highlighting again. You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy. How clearer could the Nice Guy®’s antipathy toward this woman, and all women, be? Emotional intimacy, this says, is what women want. Physical intimacy is what men want. I gave, you should have given. Quid pro quo and all that.

Except…men and women both need both physical and emotional intimacy, as anyone with any understanding of humans knows. And the two do not always go hand-in-hand, as anyone with any understanding of humans knows. The Nice Guy® is hampered because all he knows about women comes from his reading of evolutionary psychology and his internalization of patriarchal ideals.

Don’t you get it? There is a stereotype that women do not want sex, and that sex is something that men must trick or bribe women into giving men. The stereotype is that women want only emotional intimacy, and men want only physical intimacy, and they must “trade” for the other to get what they want. Nice GuyTM buys into this stereotype, and believes that being “friends” with a woman is giving her what she wants at the expense of himself, and that if she does not reciprocate with physical intimacy, she is reaping the supposed benefits of an emotional relationship (“friendship”) that, allegedly, only women benefit from. Thus, he feels he is being cheated because she does not put out or become romantically involved with him.

By the way, here’s an article from the Onion which is meant as humor but I think pretty accurately describes the situation from the girl’s point of view:

You seem like a nice guy, not a Nice Guy TM so I’ll give you the truth. Women don’t like either nice guys or Nice Guys TM. Women think they want to be respected and treated well so they bitch about guys who don’t. But they usually perceive nice as weakness so they despise the guys who do.

Nobody likes a wuss. But women especially admire strength and despise weakness in a man. And they often confuse jerk for strength and nice for weakness. So the more you kiss their ass the worse results you’ll have. Its better to be strong without being a jerk. But you’re still better off being a jerk than being a wuss. So stop being a wuss.

Go to the gym, be well dressed & well groomed, work on your career and have fun. And if you see a girl you like then be friendly, joke with her and ask her out. If she says no or makes an excuse then just move on. Never hang around kissing her ass because that is NOT going to get you anywhere. And when other girls see it they won’t go out with you either.

And most importantly, never get wit a gold digger. Now, I ain’t sayin she a gold digger. But she ain’t messin wit no broke mmm…

“Nope, now that is a straw man. That’s not the girl’s point of view; that’s Nice Guy’sTM POV of what he thinks is the girl’s POV.”

You really think no girls like that exist? Come on, now. Sadly, they’re probably just the type a nice guy ends up falling for, and it colors his feelings towards all women from then on.

I get what you’re saying about the emotional vs physical intimacy, but then they are referring to a very specific type of guy who only wants sex from a girl and will pretend to be her friend in order to get it. Now we can all agree that’s bad, and if it stopped there, there’d be no problem, but that’s not what many of the vocal Nice Guy bashers are saying. The XKCD comic, for example, seems to me to say “This man loves this woman and has always been at her side. He’s not just in it for the sex, he wants a long-term relationship with her. This makes him the bad guy, somehow. The woman should run away and start dating a jerk who doesn’t respect her because she doesn’t feel attracted to this guy whom she never gave a chance.”

Anyway, I’m not here to argue, and I’ve already said my piece. I guess just try to remember that everyone is an individual, and try not to judge people before you know them and think the worst about them right away, because that’s a pretty crappy way to live.

You really think no girls like that exist? Come on, now. Sadly, they’re probably just the type a nice guy ends up falling for, and it colors his feelings towards all women from then on.

I think such girls can exist, but as a woman who found out some of her guy friends or acquaintances were really Nice GuysTM, I don’t think it’s necessary for a girl to think that for the situation to happen. When I was younger and more naive, I believed that it was not good to have friends of all the same gender, and that one should also have friends of a different gender. Apparently, some guys believe that men and women cannot really have platonic friendships, and that a woman having a different-gender friend really means she is entering into a social contract that must eventually lead to a romantic relationship. Even if she already has a boyfriend.

The XKCD comic, for example, seems to me to say “This man loves this woman and has always been at her side. He’s not just in it for the sex, he wants a long-term relationship with her. This makes him the bad guy, somehow. The woman should run away and start dating a jerk who doesn’t respect her because she doesn’t feel attracted to this guy whom she never gave a chance.”

No. First of all, although in the comic she says “jerk”, it’s not to be taken literally. In real life, she doesn’t think he’s a jerk, and it’s Nice GuyTM who calls him that (mainly because he is dating the woman who Nice GuyTM wants to date, so he tries to rationalize why he is better than that other guy).

Secondly, the distinction between only physical intimacy and a long-term relationship (which includes physical intimacy) is not important here. What’s important is that Nice GuyTM (and you, given that you believe the Onion link is what women in such situations are thinking) believes that being a woman’s friend is doing her a favour and self-sacrificial, with no benefit to yourself.

Restructure, I’ve got a question for you and any other woman who might be reading this: Is it your opinion that women on average are unable to tell when a man is attracted to them as opposed to just being friendly, especially when’s he’s around often, and for a long time? I’ve got my own answer, but I’d like to hear what you think first.

I really don’t know about other women, but in one case, I suspected, but since I then made sure to mention and constantly bring up my boyfriend, that should have ended any ambiguity, right? Apparently not, but then that would be the fault of the guy who doesn’t respect my relationship.

Note that “suspected” means that I wasn’t sure, and if you’re not sure, you should give the person the benefit of the doubt that he does not have ulterior motives, which applies even more if he is your friend. (Also, if you have self-esteem issues and don’t consider yourself attractive, then assuming that someone likes you seems like you think you are prettier than you actually are.)

I think some non-arrogant younger women cant tell if a guy likes them, or whether he is a NiceGuy. It really depends on the individual and their experiences so far.

I can tell when a ‘NiceGuy’ fancies me, but theres no describable signs. Its on a more intuitive danger-spotting level though based on the amount of times my life has been almost ruined by a man who starts by claiming to be my friend and then gets irrational and angry when I date someone. (I am of course keeping it brief, they do more than just get moody)
And more accurately I can also tell when a guy has clocked me as a ‘target’.
I used to believe that any guy was only being friendly and it was judgemental to assume that men only wanted one thing, but as some one who often got told off for being trusting and naive I really learned the hard way. Plus ive had a lot of male friends that just disappear when they get a girlfriend which saddens me.

As a pulling tactic I seriously disapprove of the NiceGuy technique, its dishonest, cowardly, a ‘bit-rapey’ and extremely unlikely to end in happiness for either party.

Im not saying all NiceGuys are evil, but as a matter of safety I cant afford to trust them anymore, so now, possibly harmless socially awkward men who doubt their ability to pull me happen to seriously creep me out.
And any man who uses the phrase ‘I only want to be friends’ will be told that hes just eliminated any possibility of
sex with me. I just dont have any doubt any more to give them the benefit with.

Its a shame, its like they made me into the bitch they were trying to avoid by trying to prey on a more ‘attainable’ insecure geek girl.

I really apologize for my extremeness but that’s how much this stuff disturbs me. I am so relived that Im not alone in recognising this ploy. Thankyou.

fred: your advise is almost spot on. Girls mistake arrogance for confidence when they are young ( assholes ),
and look for someone confident/self-assured and honest/straightforward (proper nice guys) when theyve figured it out.
If a man wants to avoid becoming the NiceGuy, Have the Guts to ask her out and respect with the fact that not everyone we like likes us back, and dont lie to her or yourself about friendship.

No apologies necessary. You’re 100% right and it parallels some of my experiences. I’m a good looking guy and being decent and honorable still didn’t work. Girls would hit on me but when they saw I was a “nice guy” they’d lose interest. So I tried the Nice Guy TM approach one time with a co worker in high school and that was a huge mistake. I agree that its “extremely unlikely to end in happiness for either party.”

I know where Johnny_B was going with his question of whether girls could tell if a guy was interested. Because the one time I did it the girl was using me as an insurance policy just in case other relationships didn’t work out. What a f’ing bitch. This went on for a few weeks, maybe three months. Then one night I got a “booty call”. It wasn’t explicit, more like “what ya doin? Why don’t you come over and hang out?” So I go over and all the chick wanted was a dicking. That’s when I realized she was playing me. It wasn’t going anywhere and I didn’t feel like being used so I quietly and calmly said, “I think it’s time for me to go” and I left. That’s right. I left. And she got so mad. After that she went absolutely PSYCHO. And turned into a real “bunny boiler”. It got so bad I had to quit the job to get away from her. I saw her a few months later and she was knocked up. So it’s a good thing I left that night. hehe

But after that I had no problems getting girlfriends because she cured me of being a “nice guy”. In fact, a couple of girls have even tried working the Nice Guy TM routine on ME! But I don’t go for that shit. If I wasnt interested I’d tell them straight up. And if they wouldn’t take “no” for an answer then I make them take “no” for an answer. But I think some of these women complaining about Nice Guy’s TM are really just stringing guys along. I’m not saying you’re like that. It sounds like you’ve really had a couple of guys who wouldn’t take no for an answer. I think you’re very wise not to take any chances. If in doubt, throw ‘em out.

Now, this is the funniest part. After that one incident I never had any problem being real friends with a woman with absolutely no desire to have sex with her. And there was a couple of times when I had been long time friends with a girl and they hit on me when they were between boyfriends. They had just assumed I was being a Nice Guy TM. And couldn’t believe it in when I told them, “I just don’t think of you that way.” :)

Like Fred said, I asked the question because I was wondering whether it’s possible for a woman to truly not realize some guy was in love with her and think he was just friendly instead. After reading some of the responses it seems that it is possible. But as he said, there are also women who know what the guy feels and they choose to string him along, as a backup, or to do things for them, or to feel better about themselves (because this guy wants them even when the boyfriend dumped them) and so on. But then, if a guy chooses to stay with a woman like that without letting her know how he feels, the fault is his because he’s the one letting himself be used and not having the spine to do something about it.

As for the nice guys vs arrogant assholes, I think women go for the latter type because they see them as strong and confident. Sometimes, especially with the younger/shallower girls, if a jerk is good-looking and has money, she’ll stay with him even if he treats her badly, because being seen with a high-status man is worth the price (seen quite a few real-life cases of this).

Fred: Its nice to see in your first story such a clear example of how men and women are just the same! I used to think so but Ive lost perspective along the way. Im not like that girl but it is humbling nonetheless to remember they exist.

Its also great to know that there are indeed ‘normal’ people out there who can be just pals, though maybe we all have to learn a lesson or two to get there.
Thanks for restoring some optimism!

Whats curious to me is to realise that as Ive got older and attempted friendships with men I consider safe from trying to pull me, they’ve tended to avoid me for thinking I want them for sex, they think im a NiceGirl omg! Will the complications never end? ;)

Restucture: I am guilty of generalising all girls to be like me!
Thanks for further perspective.
Given that I seem to support the premise that ‘women want confident men’ I should say that I lack sufficient confidence and that is what I look for to complement my flaws.
We all have different tastes, theres no one thing that all women or all men look for…

just like theres no answer to ‘are they using me because they know I like them’. You can definitely know someone likes you, want to be their friend and not be using them. Whether its commonplace or sensible is another thing.

Rosie writes, Its nice to see in your first story such a clear example of how men and women are just the same!

There are a lot of similarities. There are some stunts men and women pull that are alike. But I’ve also seen a few stunts that tend to be particular to one gender or the other. From what I can tell the big dangers for each to watch out for is that a guy will date rape or beat a woman. On the other hand, some women will falsely accuse a guy of rape or abuse. The first sounds worse and I think it probably is. But the second can be just as bad if the guy goes to prison, loses custody of his kids, etc. for something he didn’t do. My advice for anyone who even thinks the person they’re with could do anything like that is to RUN!

Time to set the record straight on Nice Guys(TM), who are characteristically unable to defend themselves. In fact, they are some of the best guys around, they just have the misfortune to be unattractive to women. The same is true, by the way, in reverse regarding fat and/or otherwise ugly women who may be great people but can’t get a date because they were cursed with bad genes regarding physical appearance. Or for women who are called “bitchy” simply because they take on male traits of assertiveness and leadership. Such women have every right to complain about their plight, and men who make fun of them are cruel and misogynest. Similarly, women who kick the long-suffering Nice Guy (TM) at the bottom of male pecking order are clearly man haters.

I think what really bugs pseudo-feminists like Restructure about Nice Guys(TM) is that they prove that such women don’t really want to be equal with men. If they did, they would happily accept as romantic partners men with traditionally feminine traits: caring (spineless), concerned (indecisive), sensitive (cowardly) etc. They could provide their own “male energy” and spark to ther relationship; they wouldn’t need it from the guy, and wouldn’t be bored like the woman in the cartoon. They would appreciate the real value provided to a relationship with a caring companion.

Instead, they try to rationalize their own attraction to be dominated by a male who is: assertive (rude), tough (close minded), and energetic (overbearing.) They do this by a convoluted theory that Nice Guys(TM) trade and manipulate emotional intimacy for sex, so they are the equivalent of the jerk.

Come on Restructure, you are smarter than that. if all nice guys wanted was sex from women, their romantic lives would be free from problems. They would simply pay for it directly, a relatively easy proposition for many nice guy tech nerd types with no family and pulling down six and seven figure incomes. Just the opposite; they are gentlemanly to women not to delude or trick them into sex, they are nice because they want to be LOVED passionately for themselves as decent, caring individuals, because they have a deeper concept of a more courtly, graceful world. In fact, if Nice Guys were women or homosexual men, this natural trait would be no disadvantage, however Nice Guys have the misfortune to be heterosexual men, and thus elbowed out by more aggresive, blunter males.

In fact, Nice Guys do not even object to the Good Guys who most women select above them (i.e., basically decent guys who are simply tougher and more confident) It is the success of the Jerk that galls, especially since the Jerk tends to confide his real misogynist malice to the Nice Guy as the women fall like dominos to his belittling, malice, and mind games.

Bottom line: At the end of the day, men and women are attracted to breeders and leaders, respectively. Morality and personal views about men and women have little to do with one’s attractiveness to the opposite sex. Restructure, don’t attempt to rationalize it, accept biology, and stop kicking the losers of the mating game. By doing so, you only perpetuate the repression of women.

PS — My advice to all other Nice Guys(TM) out there who predictably get trapped into the friend zone is to take the pain, hang in there, get rejected, and remain her friend. What will then happen is that the dynamic will change, she will realize that a Nice Guy(TM) and a Nice Guy are one and the same, and she will find you a girlfriend herself through female recommendation, which is extremely powerful. For many Nice Guys, this is the only possible way to obtain a reasonably attractive girlfriend, since they are too shy to approach them directly.

I think what really bugs pseudo-feminists like Restructure about Nice Guys(TM) is that they prove that such women don’t really want to be equal with men. If they did, they would happily accept as romantic partners men with traditionally feminine traits: caring (spineless), concerned (indecisive), sensitive (cowardly) etc. They could provide their own “male energy” and spark to ther relationship; they wouldn’t need it from the guy, and wouldn’t be bored like the woman in the cartoon. They would appreciate the real value provided to a relationship with a caring companion.

You are really sad. I’m in a relationship with a caring, concerned, and sensitive guy (who happens to have low-esteem at the moment), and I am a dominant. (I wouldn’t call this “male energy”.) I’m very attracted to sensitive guys, and turned off by macho men.

For Lord Of The Rings, I think Legolas is hot, but Strider does nothing for me. For Star Trek (2009), I think Spock is seriously hot, and Kirk is a douche. I think Han Solo is an asshole and sexual harasser.

Instead, they try to rationalize their own attraction to be dominated by a male who is: assertive (rude), tough (close minded), and energetic (overbearing.) They do this by a convoluted theory that Nice Guys(TM) trade and manipulate emotional intimacy for sex, so they are the equivalent of the jerk.

Except not all women want to be dominated, including this one.

You are really sad. You can’t accept the fact that being nice is not one of those identities that you gain by self-identification, so you make up theories about my romantic and sexual preferences.

You know, it is possible to be any of those things without falling into the ‘traps’ you’ve laid out in parenthesis. My own husband is caring, concerned, sensitive, and assertive without being spineless, indecisive, cowardly or rude. While I’ll admit he’s the dominant one in our relationship, I’m generally pretty submissive–I describe myself as a follower rather than a leader. Any relationship with a man where I was the dominant one I suspect would not last, because that’s simply not who I am.

Restructure, my theories are not made up, they are derived from the cartoon YOU chose to post as exemplifying the problem with the nice guy. In fact, there is NOTHING WRONG with this man other than he exemplifies traditional female traits: passivity (he lacks confidence to ask the woman out); empathy (he gives electronic and real “hugs”); and domesticity (he washes dishes) All of which is unattractive and boring to the girl, who runs to a “jerk” who will presumably provide her with energy and spark in her life, as well as put her in her place. So regardless of how you conduct yourself in your personal life, your IDEAS perpetuate patriarchy. They are also plain wrong and somewhat mean-spirited.

Restructure, my theories are not made up, they are derived from the cartoon YOU chose to post as exemplifying the problem with the nice guy. In fact, there is NOTHING WRONG with this man other than he exemplifies traditional female traits: passivity (he lacks confidence to ask the woman out); empathy (he gives electronic and real “hugs”); and domesticity (he washes dishes) All of which is unattractive and boring to the girl, who runs to a “jerk” who will presumably provide her with energy and spark in her life, as well as put her in her place.

You obviously fail to understand the comic, so I will explain it to you.

There are several types of xkcd comics. One type of xkcd comic portrays something that geeks identify with, and these comics are meaningful, because geek identity is basically never portrayed in mainstream media. Another type of xkcd comic is humourous and contain a joke/punchline. xkcd’s “Friends” is actually a joke-comic with a punchline, but it skewers/criticizes its own (mostly heterosexual male) geek audience/readership. Unfortunately, because a large portion of xkcd’s readership have Aspergers or can’t see the irony for other reasons, they erroneously see “Friends” as the first type, one that validates geek identity.

The joke is irony, and the punchline is that the Nice GuyTM is a hypocrite. Nice GuyTM is a hypocrite, because he criticizes someone else for not respecting his crush, when he himself does not respect his crush. Nice GuyTM does not respect his crush, because he emotionally manipulates his crush for his benefit, at the expense of her happiness. Nice GuyTM is emotionally manipulative, because he deliberately machinates a social situation where his crush becomes emotionally dependent on him, and he exhibits predatory behaviour by orchestrating a relationship-starting-kiss when she is emotionally vulnerable, spiritually broken, and intoxicated. This behaviour is predatory and unethical, because he is taking advantage of a situation where she is powerless and he has power over her.

In real life, women don’t see their boyfriends as jerks while they are dating them and while the relationship is going well. In the comic, however, the woman refers to her boyfriend as a “jerk” because it’s still from Nice Guy’sTM point of view–her boyfriend is a “jerk” only because he is dating his crush.* The reality is that regardless of whether the boyfriend is actually a jerk or not, Nice GuyTM does not respect his crush and plays her like a pawn; he has no business lecturing others on how to respect women.

* (In real life, (heterosexual) relationships are not fairy tales that end happily ever after, and there are relationship problems. Sometimes it’s the guy’s fault. When this happens, the girl/woman often complains to her close (girl or guy) friends about how how her boyfriend is being a jerk. Her friends get the impression that her boyfriend is a jerk and that she is too good for him. However, when the relationship is going well and the boyfriend is being nice for real, the girl/woman usually does not brag about this to her friends unless she is trying to make other people feel jealous. Therefore, there is a strong bias for her friends to see all her boyfriends as jerks, because there is a strong bias for her to talk (i.e. complain) about her relationship only when the relationship is at a low point and she needs advice.)

Restructure — Since you were kind enough to give me some insight into the female psyche, let me provide in return to some insight into the male psyche, which shows why the intended irony of the cartoon fails.

The archetypical “jerk” — who manipulates women for sex without regard to their feelings — finds sex relatively easy to obtain because he is not constrained by morality or feelings of empathy. He is able to casually and masterfully mimic romantic interest (since women are worthless, nothing is really at stake for him, he is compeletely relaxed), concentrate wholly on reading the emotional state of his prey (since feelings of anxiety and empathy do not distract him), and focus on playing the role required to seduce her.

In contrast, the “nice guy” finds it hard to express direct interest precisely because he cares deeply about the one he loves. Rejection will hurt him badly since he has great respect for the woman and will feel that he has lost something of great value if she cannot give him her greatest intimacy. At the same time, he uses great caution to avoid hurting her in any way. Until he knows the woman better, this greatly reduces his avenues of communications with her and ironically makes him come off as somewhat wooden and stilted.

The cartoon man is immediately identifiable as a nice guy because (1) he finds it difficult to directly ask the woman out; and (2) he wants a relationship, not just sex. No emotional manipulator would ever have this problem; he would simply feign interest with the woman, say whatever she wants to hear, and try to have sex with her. If she declines, he immediately moves on to the next one, and then the next, until it works. He would NEVER go through the ridiculous charade of pretending to be a friend for a lengthy period of time, just to get laid with one woman. There is no need to put in that kind of time and effort.

I think mistreatment from the jerk leads some women to the paranoid conclusion that all men manipulate for sex, when in reality the nice guy(tm)’s “niceness” is a showing of genuine caring and affection. Indeed, the proof of this is the nice guy’s bitterness at rejection, since his real feelings are at stake and he is genuinely wounded, whereas the jerk could really care less, since it was all an act anyway.

Dunno if the archetypal man-jerk is the guy who mimics romantic interest. From what I’ve seen, they’re pretty straightforward about what they want, preferring not to deal with all work of keeping up some illusory front for the sake of a simple pleasure.

As for all this bs about nice guys wanting to avoid hurting a girl because they have feelings for her…’fuck outta here with that shyt. They ‘avoid’ hurting her because the result of hurting her will be rejection to him which, as you say, will hurt him badly. Such is the ego of crackpots. Nice only because you think that’s how you should be! So damn contrived..
If you’re nice, you’re nice. “Nice Guys” are only nice to meet their own ends. Watch how their whole charade of niceties evaporate when they do get rejected. You can see this demonstrated in this whole ‘alpha male’ bullshyt these ‘geeks’ have managed to get stuffed in every other movie that gets released as well as the explosion in the self help sections of materials on how to get laid. Jerks don’t buy this stuff! Why is it that ‘nice guys’ always want to make friends with ‘jerks’ anyway?

As Hardl pointed out, the archetypal perceived “jerk” is upfront about his sexual attraction and asks the woman out. He doesn’t try to hide it.

Emotional manipulators can emotionally manipulate people for reasons other than sex, such as for money, for power, or for emotional gain. Nice Guy (TM) is a seducer, because in the comic, he orchestrates a kiss while she is intoxicated, weak, and desperate. Just because you want a relationship instead of just sex, it doesn’t mean that you can’t be emotionally manipulative. A man wanting to have sex with one person for his whole life instead of multiple partners does not make him free from selfishness. A man that wants to have both sex and emotional support from his partner is not less selfish than a man who wants just sex.

Rejection will hurt him badly since he has great respect for the woman and will feel that he has lost something of great value if she cannot give him her greatest intimacy.

If Nice Guy (TM) respected the woman, then he would realize that him being rejected by her does not reduce her value and greatness as a person. He feels he has lost something of great value, because what he really values is his own feelings and self-worth.

When you say “she cannot give him her greatest intimacy”, what do you mean by “greatest intimacy”? Do you mean physical intimacy (sex), since Nice Guy (TM) in the comic already has a very close and emotionally intimate relationship with her? Or do you mean the status one gains by being “officially” together?

Also, you again reveal your lack of respect for people without penises, including your wife, since you believe that anyone who lacks a penis is inferior. I feel sorry for your children, especially if you have a daughter.

You know what might lead to better resolutions for a lot of these situations? ASKING THE WOMAN OUT. It seems like Nice Guys get upset with girls for not realizing their interest, when they do NOTHING that would lead the girl to suspect he has any real interest. When I’ve known guys had interest in me, and I didn’t in return, I made sure they knew not to expect something more from me. Maybe that sounds a bit cruel, but I did NOT want to lead anyone along if I could help it.

If you act like a friend, I’ll treat you like a friend. If you want something more, you’re gonna have to tell me so I can put an end to that expectation, one way or another.

Once again, you “reveal” that you don’t know what “ad hominem” means. Regardless, I was speaking metaphorically. But now that you mention it, there was nothing “physically impossible” about it. Grab yourself a strap-on. I bet he’d be up for it.

For this next bit my “fred” becomes “freud”. By your own words he’s a low self-esteem loser who thinks he doesn’t deserve any better. Who else would put up with a bitter feminist? It’s not like everyone hasn’t seen the masochistic lickspittles who pander to “dominant” women. No one respects them. Not men and certainly not women. Not even the one they’re with. And it goes without saying they don’t respect themselves.

So how did these guys end up like this? They’re insecure due to some inadequacy or simply a lack of confidence. But the real question is how these women ended up so warped. On the one hand, they can’t get a real man because they’re *****es. On the other hand, they’ll never be satisfied with anything less. And so they despise the “nice guys” for not being the “real men” whom they really want.

Attacking “nice guys” is just a tantrum. Because their anger and bitterness isn’t about “nice guys”. It’s not even about “real men”. It’s usually about daddy issues. They had a poor relationship with their fathers whom they see as the archetypal male. And so they either don’t trust or even hate men. They respond by rebelling against their own nature which is to be dominated by a man.

That’s why jerks get so much poon. It fits into a woman’s nature to be dominated by a man. Not that being bullied is a good thing. But a woman’s instincts can’t distinguish between a confident man and a jerk.

===========================

As for “another nice guy (TM)” I have some advice. No woman respects a guy who kisses her ass. So if a woman isn’t interested just walk away. Once a woman pegs you as someone she’s not interested in then hanging around is a dead end. At least if you go away you might run into her at some future point and you have an opportunity to make a fresh impression. Though if you’re still gaga over here then I doubt it.

In the meantime, you need to get over all this sensitive, caring bs. That won’t get you laid. Your problem is that you’re mistaking infatuation for love. Love isn’t about kissing someone’s ass. Besides, what does she have that every other woman doesn’t have? Nothing.

So here is my advice. Go find yourself a girl who is beneath you. Maybe a “5” or a “6”. Someone who looks good enough that you won’t be embarrassed to be seen with her. But not good enough that you really care. Don’t go for just anyone. You certainly don’t want a bunnyboiler.

What this will do is boost your confidence and give you the proper attitude. And if you date her very long it will also snap you out of this “infatuation is love” nonense. The problem is that “nice guys” care too much and “jerks” care too little. You need moderation. Trust me. I gave the same advice to one of my “nice guy” friends and it worked for him.

Jayn writes, When I’ve known guys had interest in me, and I didn’t in return, I made sure they knew not to expect something more from me. Maybe that sounds a bit cruel, but I did NOT want to lead anyone along if I could help it.

That’s not cruel. It’s more compassionate than stringing someone along. I’ve always done the same for women when I wasn’t interested.

I should probably clarify in my last comment that I wasn’t advising the guy to string someone along. I was advising him to date someone whom he wasn’t infatuated with.

Don’t know what kind of weird ‘confidence’ one could gain by intentionally going for someone you won’t be ‘embarrassed’ to be seen with yet won’t really care for.
Not sure why a ‘real man’ would be looking to other people for approval of who they spend their time with,anyway.
Seems kind of self-defeating if confidence is what you’re seeking..Maybe you mean popular? Pandering to societal identities?

Hardl writes, Don’t know what kind of weird ‘confidence’ one could gain by intentionally going for someone you won’t be ‘embarrassed’ to be seen with…

The nice guy’s main weakness is a lack of confidence. Experience and success build confidence. If someone already has a confidence issue then it certainly won’t be helped if they are mocked and ridiculed for whom they are dating.

yet won’t really care for.

I never said someone they “won’t really care for”. I said someone they “don’t really care for”. I elaborated on that in my last comment but I’ll explain further.

Very few people are in love when they start dating. It’s usually just someone they would like to get to know better. It takes time to care about someone. Yet “nice guys” who already lack confidence handicap themselves even further by pursuing someone with whom they are infatuated. Putting oneself under that kind of pressure is a mistake. Therefore, if one lacks confidence they should probably start by dating someone with whom they are not infatuated.

Not sure why a ‘real man’ would be looking to other people for approval of who they spend their time with,anyway.

I agree. Once a “nice guy” gets over his confidence issues he’s more likely not to worry about that sort of thing.

Seems kind of self-defeating if confidence is what you’re seeking..

I already explained that experience and success build confidence. But once one has that confidence then, yes, it would be a step backwards to worry about it.

I thought the allegation was that nice guys manipulate girls into sex just like jerks do. Now the argument has dwindled to the allegation that nice guys somehow emotionally manipulate girls into doting LTRs through kindness and caring. Gee, how awful!

Also, The jerk gets no honesty points for being “upfront” about his sexual desire. see, the nature of fraud is that you are forthright about what YOU want, but you conceal what is in it for the other person. Example: a used car salesman is very clear about the high price of the car he wants to sell you, but doesn’t tell you the car is a lemon. Analogy: the jerk tells you he wants sex, but doesn’t reveal that he has a wife and is going dump your ass the next day. Trust me, the other salesman who is not moving any inventory, the shy guy who is too afraid to demand the highest price and wouldn’t want to screw you on the deal anyway, is NOT the problem.

I never remotely said a woman loses her value as a person because she rejects a guy. The guy suffers because he cannot have the primary attention and love of the woman he values. Just like if a good friend became more distant or one of your parents moved away.

What I mean by “greater intimacy” is the difference between friendship and romantic love, nothing complicated.

Jayn: The nice guy CANT ask her out, he’s a puss, his fight or flight system is stuck on “freeze” from birth, and always will be that way. It’s like forcing a mentally retarded person to do calculus; he is INCAPABLE of doing it. He has no choice in the matter. At the least, he has to spend a lot of time working himself up to it.

Fred: I tried dating various women once for 9 months who I was only mildly attracted to. I found it a spiritually bankrupt experience. What was the point if I felt no passion or real attraction? At the end I was ready to be just by myself, which at least felt like a more authentic experience.

Hardl: The reason I dated those women was not for confidence or popularity, but because it was either that or be totally alone. The women I was really attracted to did not want to date me. (Yes, I did ultimately express my intentions to them, but only after we were friends first, and it was very hard for me. Being uniformly rejected by every woman I found attractive didn’t make me want to do it again) Generally speaking, they told me or my friends they didn’t want to date me because I was “too nice” (No joke)

nice guy writes, The nice guy CANT ask her out, he’s a puss, his fight or flight system is stuck on “freeze” from birth, and always will be that way.

You mentioned it’s “like forcing a mentally retarded person to do calculus”. Is it possible you might have asperger’s or something? Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying you’re like “rainmain” or anything. Most aspies are very bright. It’s just that a lot of them have problems with social situations like that.

I tried dating various women once for 9 months who I was only mildly attracted to. I found it a spiritually bankrupt experience. What was the point if I felt no passion or real attraction? At the end I was ready to be just by myself, which at least felt like a more authentic experience.

Attraction has everything to do with what someone looks like. But what someone looks like has nothing to do with love. My idea of a “spiritually bankrupt” experience is basing a relationship on “attraction” and “passion”. Looks fade. And passion is fleeting.

There is certainly nothing wrong with being by oneself. There were plenty of times I chose to be by myself. It’s not like you have to be with someone right now or you risk being alone the rest of your life. It only takes one. And then you’ll have the rest of your life to be with them.

Being uniformly rejected by every woman I found attractive didn’t make me want to do it again) Generally speaking, they told me or my friends they didn’t want to date me because I was “too nice”.

Are they just saying that to keep from hurting your feelings because you’re a fat dork with a dead end job? Or are you really that big of a puss? I’m not trying to be mean but you need to figure out what the real deal is. Fat dork is easy to fix. You can hit the gym and be a stud in 3 months. A dead end job is harder. But you can fix “too nice” right now. Just stop letting them walk all over you. Otherwise you’ll end up with someone like restructure. *shudder*

The nice guy CANT ask her out, he’s a puss, his fight or flight system is stuck on “freeze” from birth, and always will be that way.Then don’t blame us if we don’t figure out that you’re interested. I can’t speak for all women, but personally I’m pretty effin’ oblivious, so unless you or someone else alerts me to your interest, I probably won’t notice.

I also can’t help but notice that you went from saying the Nice Guy ‘has nothing wrong with him’ to calling him a ‘puss’, which is a pretty uniformly derogative term. Make up your mind, would ya?

The fact that you think a man with a dominant woman is “masochistic” says something about how you treat your wife. I assume that you are the dominant partner in your marriage. If you believe that a dominant woman does not respect her man, then it means that you, as the dominant man, do not respect your wife, but you find nothing wrong with this simply because the status quo supports gender inequality and the subordination of women. Perhaps you are emotionally abusive towards your wife, which is why you think that if the roles were reversed, it would be masochistic.

I thought the allegation was that nice guys manipulate girls into sex just like jerks do. Now the argument has dwindled to the allegation that nice guys somehow emotionally manipulate girls into doting LTRs through kindness and caring. Gee, how awful!

Yes, because instead of just sex, Nice GuyTM wants to get married and have a free maid, cook, and babysitter to raise his children. Just because someone else wants X but you want X + Y, it doesn’t mean that you are better, especially if you are using emotional manipulation against the person you are supposed to care for the most.

There is a saying that goes, “A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person.” If you are only nice to your crush, it means that you are being nice to her because you want something from her.

You can certainly “put [me] under moderation” if you like. But stating well-reasoned opinions isn’t trolling — even if you disagree with them. And neither is an occasional barb — unless you’re now going to moderate vulgar and obscene insults against me.

At first, I wasn’t sure whether you were black. But after reading that last comment it’s obvious. Its devoid of reason and logic. It’s pure name calling. A little barb here and there is one thing — particularly if its witty or makes a point. But that’s ridiculous. Not least of which is your use of homophobia while claiming not to be homophobic. But that’s great because it shines a bright light on your true character.

By the way, this is the comment which supposedly “outs” me. No doubt you think anyone who doesn’t fly into a rage at being called a homo is a homo. All I can say is that I’m not homophobic so it’s just not that big of a deal to me.

What is appropriate and beneficial differs between genders.
Feminism completely passed you by, didn’t it? There are enough holes in this sentence that I could use it as a tuna net, but I’ll just say that for a guy who complains about our ‘double standards’ all the time regarding race, you sure are quick to use them yourself when it comes to gender.

You are racist and display a racist (lack of) reasoning and logic. You appear to be trolling, because the irony is painful. You accuse others of being homophobic and illogical while being racist and illogical.

Subsequent comments by you must not display blatant hypocrisy in order to be approved. You must read over your comment before submitting and check for bad logic or other signs of ignorance.

I find confounding that you can even name “homophobia” over here but not recognize interlocking issues of racism, privilege and sexism in other areas…Why can you see and empathize with your own oppression but deny/disavow the existence of more salient social struggles…?

You’re the worse kind of Gay male because you are so dishonest…if you are indeed married or involved a heterosexual relationship, you’re probably also on the “down-low”, engaging in tea-room quickies and sneaking off to the tubs.

Given fred’s incessant trolling on previous blogs, I find it weird and contradictory that he can all of a sudden “empathize” with the oppression of homophobia (which I really don’t believe) but not others…

Jayn quoted me as saying:What is appropriate and beneficial differs between genders.

The complete statement was:No. It says something about evolution. What is appropriate and beneficial differs between genders. This is true because men and women have different temperaments and psychology as well as plumbing.

I often quote single sentences when making multiple references. But that is merely so people know to which portion of their comments I am responding. I would never deliberately attack someone based on a single sentence taken out of context.

Now, if you want to talk about “holes” in my argument then you need to address the fact that men and women do, in fact, possess different “temperaments and psychology as well as plumbing”. There are also many similarities but it is not inappropriate to apply two different standards where men and women differ and those differences are relevant. A true “double standard” would be to either apply two different standards to two similar things when it is not relevant or, as a corollary, the same standard to two dissimilar things when it is.

You are racist and display a racist (lack of) reasoning and logic. You appear to be trolling, because the irony is painful. You accuse others of being homophobic and illogical while being racist and illogical.

Namecalling doesn’t prove anything. I have said similarly of you. But you have always dismissed it with a bit of handwaving and people refusing to “recognize their privilege”. Why should I give your criticism any more weight than you have given mine? I’m not the one who created an entire blog dedicated to denigrating another race.

Subsequent comments by you must not display blatant hypocrisy in order to be approved. You must read over your comment before submitting and check for bad logic or other signs of ignorance.

Well, you certainly didn’t paint yourself into a corner with that one. Why not just say, “I won’t approve any more comments unless they agree with me”? Or better yet, why not just quote ASQV and say, now “assume the position” and let me penetrate you with some anti-racist – feminist sense. Well, pardon me if I don’t grab my ankles.

fred Says:
December 19, 2010 at 8:42 am
Namecalling doesn’t prove anything. I have said similarly of you. But you have always dismissed it with a bit of handwaving and people refusing to “recognize their privilege”.

Why all the sudden “concern” again with the ethics of commentary / moderation?

For the past year or more, you have done nothing but lace your comments with poisonous and pernicious language, and now you’re begging Restructure to exercise fairness and show “leniency” in rescuing you…?

For the record, if you didn’t already read, Restructure also censured me on my inappropriate comments to which I apologized only to her….

Again, I made them in irony in calling you out, to hopefully make you think about the gross contradictory nature of your rhetoric. How can defend/adopt empathy with issues of same-sex orientation on one hand, and go around trashing of the concept of the less-dominate heterosexual male in using language like “puss” or “translation: I’m in a relationship with a wuss and I am a *****. :)?

If you’re even serious about discussion, why do you do this…? Do you not think you’re revealing your gross immaturity…?

Restructure says, you are “indeed married, probably to an Asian wife”.

Is this comment true…?

And if you are indeed, I couldn’t think of a “better way” for a White male who is ambivalent about his sexual orientation than to deploy such an interracial marriage as a strategy in deflecting / silencing inquiry about his latent feelings—–ie. he has bought into the White supremacist mythology about the so-called “submissive/complaint Asian female” so he can appear dominant and “more masculine” vis-à-vis the “little woman”.

In short, is the Asian female spouse acting as your “beard”?
Is that what you mean by being “confident”?

Frankly Fred sweet, you exhaust people—-and you know you do it deliberately…. But I again, I find it riotously funny and ironic that you adopt a “compassionate” discourse regarding issues of sexual orientation without seeing how they intersect with the race and gender oppressions that you are always loudly denying with disruptive rhetoric.

If you did see the paradox/contradictions of your comments, you’d be more critically conscious and would cease the “loser”, “wuss”, “bxxxh”, and contemptuous “plumbing” lingo.

Hopefully one of these days, somebody is going to force you to “grab” your ankles like you just said.

Or did the Blacks guys in high-school, for whom you have also displayed so much contempt—-coerce you to do that already…?

Your comments are not appropriate either. fred’s sexual orientation doesn’t have to do with anything, and not denying doesn’t mean anything. He is indeed married, probably to an Asian wife.

…….

Restructure,

Sorry, if I appear to be disputing you here…I just want to add that sexual orientation is very relevant to this discussion. Many Gay or sexually ambivalent males will marry to dispel interrogation of their orientation. Being legally married to a woman means frankly nothing in Gay community politics/experience. In fact, many Gay or bi-sexual males often seek out passive/compliant partners in pressures to conform; on the corollary Lesbian women can seek out the less-dominant male partners in likewise dispelling suspicion or in the motive of simply desiring children / motherhood. Is that bad…? It might not be honest…

With regards that vexing issue of race, straight and Gay White males, in particular, can sometimes subscribe to the racist “China Doll” syndrome in selecting an Asian partner in boosting their masculinity, and reconstituting loss of male privilege/ prestige.

Is this what you’re hinting at in your comment…?

The underlying idea is giving the all important “appearances/performance” of heterosexuality some stability and “normalcy”. Also there is an assumption that the so-called “passive” partner in the relationship might not be as “demanding” in the marriage bed, almost to the point of having no libido.

But I do not subscribe to these myths, I’m just saying they are “out there” as I have listened to the experiences of Gay people in a heterosexual marriage and/or divorced. I ask why did they do it…?

Ultimately, just appearing “straight” is critical to identity formation—so the privileges of claiming heterosexual identity will flow and accrue. So long as people “think” you are, then the sexually ambivalent individual is safe and secure.

Worse—and don’t hit me, I have met some women who unconsciously subscribe to patriarchy in assumptions/ expectations of gender performance and division of labour, etc. Worse, they can sometimes, usually in complicity with the Pater, impart “gender scripts” to both the female and male children.

There no easy solutions until we unpack heterosexuality as the socializing norm, seeing it as also a “performance”.

Worse—and don’t hit me, I have met some women who unconsciously subscribe to patriarchy in assumptions/ expectations of gender performance and division of labour,

………………

Not “worse”—but on the other hand / on the corollary. I did not mean to imply a value judgment here…I meant just opposite / at the same time.

Also, these comments emerge out of experiences as a caregiver and from Black community experiences/where it cannot be said we are liberated from patriarchal ideology either in the socialization of females and males…

First you said I was a homosexual for not denying a smear that wasn’t even worth commenting on. Then you said I’m really a homophobe feigning empathy for homosexuals. And now you say I’m really a homosexual after all and that I’m feigning masculinity by marrying a subservient asian woman as a “beard” in order to fit in to a heterosexual world.

Out of curiosity, where does this latest fantasy of yours place me in regards to homophobia? Am I a homophobic homosexual? Or am I a homosexual who is clumsily pretending not to be homophobic so that people will think that I really am homophobic and hence not a homosexual after all? Uswhite debbils sure are clever! And for my next clever scheme I’m going to drop Austin Powers into a pool filled with man-eating sea bass.

“Now, if you want to talk about “holes” in my argument then you need to address the fact that men and women do, in fact, possess different “temperaments and psychology as well as plumbing”. There are also many similarities but it is not inappropriate to apply two different standards where men and women differ and those differences are relevant.”

Firstly, at this point it is impossible to tell how much is nature and how much is nurture. Our society subtly encourages boys and girls to behave differently (usually in ways that benefit males, but sometimes the reverse is true). Unless and until we get to a truly gender neutral society, we cannot really know how wide the innate differences are, if indeed there are any.

Secondly, whatever innate differences there might be, they’re only tendencies, not absolutes, and certainly not definitive characteristics of either gender. Even in our current, skewed society, there are women who show strongly ‘masculine’ traits, and men who show strong ‘feminine’ traits. These people get marginalized, and they cannot express themselves as who they are–our culture often doesn’t let them. Think of it like the BMI–it might work on a large scale, but it’s horrible if you apply it at the individual level. It doesn’t matter what women are like or what men are like, because as long as we hold onto those ideas, we won’t be able to see members of either gender for who they really are, and that does us all a great disservice.

restructure, since you won’t take it from me, would you please take to heart what Jayn and the last part of what anti-Status Quo just said.

You need to stop dissing the heterosexual nice guy and should if anything be praising him for trying to exist outside a typical male gender role. Guys reading your postings and cartoons will only have further reinforcement nice guys are losers and will feel further pressured to act dominantly to attract a woman, even if they don’t naturally want to play that role.

Nothing gives the nice guy the right to lash out a women due to his failure to find a heterosexual mate, he has no special entitlement to anything in the world nor special grievance. However, you are really cutting off your nose to spite your face by focussing only on the childish aspects of the nice guy’s complaints and parsing every word for hints of misogyny. If you want to experience real misyongy listen to some gangster rap, watch some porn.

Listen to the substance of the nice guy’s comments and you will realize that the system and the outdated scripts men and women must play are the real problem, he is not.

Dissing the nice guy may also have negative consequence to society at large. The nice guy’s tempermant is a disadvantage in social matters and with women yes, but it is conversely an advantage in intellectual and analytical matters. They are dorks in school but this ultimately translates to real wealth and power. Thus, nice guy plays an outsized role in the world of business and technology as CEOs and billionaires (Bill Gates, Warren buffet, etc.) I would wager that a lot of what is going on here is overcompensation, and if nice guy could be accepted socially for his own more “female” tempermant, maybe he would use his unique insight and abilities to do something positive. instead of f’ing over everyone else to become a master of the universe, to overcompensate for his undesireable tempermant.

There are many examples of cultures that have been isolated and developed independently. The gender roles were pretty standard across all of them. If anything, gender roles are more egalitarian here than anywhere else.

Nor are these roles unusual in humans. One finds similar behaviors in primates and just about every other animal. Its the result of the biological roles each has to play. Moreover, those roles have resulted in physical changes as well as psychological ones. For example, males tend to be both larger and more aggressive than females. In a word — dominant.

If society encourages these roles it is not going against the grain. It is merely reinforcing pre existing tendencies. Tendencies which I believe are advantageous and beneficial for the whole. There is no such thing as “gender neutral” because genders aren’t neutral. Is your gender neutral? Mine isn’t.

You might not like what I say but I don’t say things because I think people will like them. I say things because they are true. We can certainly discuss it and we’ll both profit from the exchange. But realize that I didn’t make those things true. And I can’t make them untrue.

Regardless of how those gender roles came to be, they hurt both genders in human society. For men, they lose out on chances to express their emotions in positive ways, and the pressure to be a breadwinner often deprives them of bonding experiences with their families, especially their kids. Trophy wives aren’t just about appearances–they take care of the household that the husband has to neglect to further his career.

For women, we lose the chance to be independant. We are encouraged to settle down, have kids, be mothers, in so so many ways. Our ability to advance our careers is hindered, our earning potential is limited, and if we eschew our motherly ‘duties’ in favour of the way, lets face it, men behave, we’re chastized for it. A man who is assertive gets a promotion–a woman who is assertive gets labelled a bitch. A man who takes a day off to look after his sick kids is lauded as a ‘family man’–a woman who does the same catches crap for not ‘pulling her weight’ at work. Men are expected to have both career and family, but women are told we’re delusional if we think we can have both.

While the roles both men and women play are crucial, holding them to those roles is harmful to both individuals and society as a whole. We don’t get judged on what we can do so much as we are judged on our ability to maintain gender roles that for many people just don’t fit them well.

Regarding your “brick wall” comment, that was fair. I did not substantively respond to your previous post. Responsive answer is below:

Irony does not prevent your comic from being repulsively sexist. Example: Many racist cartoons/novels of 19th century sought to ridicule black subject through irony. The racism is exhibited not through the literal words of the characters, but through unstated assumption giving rise to belittling humor. I.e. Jim tries to use sophisticated vocabulary to Huck, which Jim amusingly garbles. Unstated racist assumption giving rise to intended humor is that blacks are too stupid to use white language.

According to you, your posted cartoon stands for proposition that nice guy disrespects girl, a proposition it attempts to reveal through irony. However, humor rests on unstated sexist assumption that women are pliant and passive man is unattractive to women. Why does nice guy disrespect woman? Because according to you, he emotionally manipulates women to his own benefit at expense of her happiness.

However, how would nice guy know in advance this was the case? Remember, he did not ask the woman if she was interested, and she did not tell him that she was or wasn’t. Why could Nice Guy not conclude that she would genuinely fall in love with him simply by virtue of his being passively nice and empathetic? Comic rests on sexist unstated assumptions that: (1) Nice Guy must use Machiavellian means to make woman enter relationship, since his “female” traits of empathy and passivity do not fit within the roles of his “male script” attractive to women; (2) nice guy cannot bed a woman without getting her drunk for same reasons; and (3) woman cannot truly love Nice Guy for same reasons.

Were none of the above sexist propositions true, it could not be said that nice guy disrespects the woman. There would be no reason for nice guy to conclude his approach would rob the woman of happiness. At most, he is naive, not disrespectful.

Don’t even get me started about what the comic assumes about women. She is forced to be in a LTR with the nice guy because of one “relationship-starting kiss”? What is he, a vampire that infects her with magic? Can’t she make up her own mind about anything at all? Why does she have to be the pawn of either the nice guy or the jerk?

You mentioned strawmanning. The comic’s attempt to defame the nice guy’s character by suggesting that he attempts to emotionally isolate women and then date rape her is the lowest form of polemicism. (In fact, although this is not the important point, the date rape allegation is untrue, look at the body language, she approaches him, not the other way around) This has been done before — 19th century cartoons attempted to demean blacks by pasting on them unattractive protruding eyes and huge oversized lips, did that mean blacks could be fairly described as possessing those characteristics? Of course not, it is classic bootstrapping and circular argument, the same cheap shots you employ to defame the character of the nice guy to enforce hoary gender roles.

Restrucutre, stop defending the “female script” that society has foisted on women to make them subservient and which you appear to have unconsciously internalized, stop publishing sexist cartoons.

I also read your post on tech male geeks complaining about women despite high income. I was surprised that you proffered no up-front opinion on why this takes place, why “hide the ball?” Anyway, I definitely disagree with your innuendo that it is because of their views towards woman.

First of all, is self-reporting of geeks at lack of success with women even true? If it is true, why? Because they internalize Disney characters? Come ON. Take another group of talented males, NBA athletes. They are famously “successful” with women, if that is the proper term. Take Wilt Chamberlain, who famously claimed to have sex with 10,000 women. Do you really mean to say that the difference between the two groups is that Chamberlain treated women respectfully and did not subscribe to stereotypes? What about tech geeks who grow up with mothers, sisters, and female friends? Is that experience valueless? Or is it only “banging chicks” that counts for experience with women in your world?

One simple explanation I would proffer is that attraction between sexes (whether derived from culture or biology, I take no position) is primal and non-rational. Men like “T and A” and a symetrical face, women like a display of dominance through physical or verbal prowess. High income bestows real social dominance, but attraction is based on more crude metrics of dominance applicable to a more primitive societies in which we evolved. High income for the proverbial shy, weakling nerd can only attract a “gold digger” who is interested in money, not him. It cannot buy attraction.

However, humor rests on unstated sexist assumption that women are pliant and passive man is unattractive to women. […] However, how would nice guy know in advance this was the case? Remember, he did not ask the woman if she was interested, and she did not tell him that she was or wasn’t. Why could Nice Guy not conclude that she would genuinely fall in love with him simply by virtue of his being passively nice and empathetic? Comic rests on sexist unstated assumptions that: (1) Nice Guy must use Machiavellian means to make woman enter relationship, since his “female” traits of empathy and passivity do not fit within the roles of his “male script” attractive to women; (2) nice guy cannot bed a woman without getting her drunk for same reasons; and (3) woman cannot truly love Nice Guy for same reasons.

We know that Nice Guy’sTM crush will not go out with him, because Nice GuyTMrefuses to ask her out, and instead pretends to be her “friend”. The idea that “passive man is unattractive to women” is the incorrect conclusion that a typical Nice GuyTM reaches, which is what the comic is criticizing. That is, the girl doesn’t get with Nice GuyTM because he doesn’t ask her out, not because he is “too nice”, since he is not really being a nice person. See the explanation What is a “Nice Guy®?”, because you are still not getting this fundamental point, as you are a typical Nice GuyTM with typical Nice GuyTM conclusions about women, which are what many people are criticizing.

What about tech geeks who grow up with mothers, sisters, and female friends? Is that experience valueless?

Good point. It seems that many male tech geeks see their mother and sisters as people, but they see the women they are attracted to as objects and prey.

One simple explanation I would proffer is that attraction between sexes (whether derived from culture or biology, I take no position) is primal and non-rational. Men like “T and A” and a symetrical face, women like a display of dominance through physical or verbal prowess. High income bestows real social dominance, but attraction is based on more crude metrics of dominance applicable to a more primitive societies in which we evolved. High income for the proverbial shy, weakling nerd can only attract a “gold digger” who is interested in money, not him. It cannot buy attraction.

At the moment, I believe that male tech geeks are generally less successful, because they don’t ask women out, they believe that their appearance doesn’t matter and only women’s appearance matters, and because of a culture of Othering and misogyny. Another thing that annoys me is that when a male tech geek tries to impress me, he starts mansplaining technical subjects and assumes that I know less about the subject than him because I’m a woman, which I find incredibly sexist.

Jayn writes, Regardless of how those gender roles came to be, they hurt both genders in human society.

The “hurts” you describe are merely the opportunity cost of reasonable decisions. If men and women have different opportunity costs it is because they have very real biological and psychological differences. That there is also an element of socialization seems reasonable. But there have been enough studies on identical twins to establish that most behaviour (as much as 80%) is genetic.

Therefore the argument that men are losing out on “chances to express their emotions in positive ways” is a false assumption. Men simply express their emotions in the way that is natural for them. That you don’t consider it “positive” only demonstrates an inherent difference in the way men and women view such things.

“and the pressure to be a breadwinner often deprives them of bonding experiences with their families, especially their kids.”

Some men are close to their families and some aren’t. The ones who aren’t usually don’t want to be. It’s not a conscious decision. It’s just the way they’re made. You only see it as “deprived” because you’re viewing it through the lens of your own nature.

For women, we lose the chance to be independant. We are encouraged to settle down, have kids, be mothers, in so so many ways.

Everyone loses their “independence” when they get married. But I don’t really see women being “encouraged” to settle down and have kids any more than men are. What I see is most women being encouraged to go to school and have careers. Very often its the women that don’t have careers who are looked down on. If women feel conflicted it’s because they are being encouraged to go against their own nature.

Our ability to advance our careers is hindered, our earning potential is limited, and if we eschew our motherly ‘duties’ in favour of the way, lets face it, men behave, we’re chastized for it.

Whether or not you get married and have children is your decision. But if you choose to have children then someone will have to look after them. I suggest the decision is primarily a matter of economics and child welfare.

A man who is assertive gets a promotion–a woman who is assertive gets labelled a bitch.

There’s nothing wrong with being assertive for either a man or a woman. But when someone pisses others off then they get dissed regardless of gender.

A man who takes a day off to look after his sick kids is lauded as a ‘family man’–a woman who does the same catches crap for not ‘pulling her weight’ at work.

Men are expected to put work first. Men who don’t are usually looked down on — not “lauded”. Women with children are expected to take an occasional day off to “look after sick kids”. But anyone who takes too many days off will “catch crap”.

Men are expected to have both career and family, but women are told we’re delusional if we think we can have both.

But there have been enough studies on identical twins to establish that most behaviour (as much as 80%) is genetic.

But identical twins have the same race and gender. White male twins, for example, who grow up in two different adopted homes in the United States both have white privilege, male privilege, and American privilege. Often they have similar socio-economic statuses too. However, if you put one baby twin to grow up in Sierra Leone and the other to grow up in the United States, it would be unreasonable to expect the Sierra Leone twin to pull himself up by his bootstraps and end up with around the same income and wealth as his American twin.

“I suggest the decision is primarily a matter of economics and child welfare.”

You are aware of the income gap between men and women, right? And how women will get pushed into ‘softer’ areas, often ones that pay less? And that men in the same profession will often get paid more than women–even women without kids often see smaller paychecks. The usual argument is that women make ‘choices’ that affect their careers negatively–but how many women are expected to take care of household tasks, even when both they and their husbands work? If we’re going to go by income for choosing who stays home with the kids, then yeah most of the time the woman is going to wind up at home, because on average women make less money than men do. This isn’t just because of the choices they make–it’s because of the choices our culture leads us to EXPECT them to make. Even if a woman doesn’t have a family, she may be seen as more of a liability because our culture teaches us that Women Make Babies.

Frankly, it doesn’t really matter what ‘natural tendencies’ lead us towards, because not everyone has them to the same degree. Some men want to be family men, but our culture discourages that, just as it often discourages career women (really, while we may be encouraged to go to school and get jobs, there is a significant segment of the population that thinks that you’re not a real woman unless you’re a mother). And these people are failed by a culture that pressures them to be something other than what their individual personalities lead them towards.

Let me try this another way–if these differences are indeed innate, they don’t need to be reinforced. Women and men would still behave differently even if our culture didn’t teach us that. In fact, the reinforcement might be bad by making us TOO different. From personal experience, I’m too submissive. Regardless of if this is by nature or nurture, this trait has been bad for me, by not allowing me to ensure my own needs are met. On the other side, men can become too aggressive.

And while the different roles that have been assigned to men and women both have value, it doesn’t matter which gender does them. If a man becomes the homemaker and the woman the breadwinner, that’s still a functioning household. If the pair both do a bit of each, same thing. Our culture tells us the Ideal Arrangement, but that’s not ideal for everyone, and trying to live up to it can be very bad (For an extreme example, I’d suggest nolongerquivering.com. Vicki Garrison’s story in particular tells of how this wasn’t really workable in her home, and trying to maintain the illusion was…well, she tells it better than I can).

One last note, on a somewhat different topic–there’s a difference between the interdependence involved in marriage, and the dependence of not earning your own money (which is often a tactic used by abusers). My MIL…well, I don’t think she knows how to be her own person. In her previous relationship, her husband didn’t want her working, so she focused on being a wife and mother. And frankly, that seems to be her whole identity–what she can do for others. She doesn’t seem to have an identity as a person. We all need individual identities, regardless of whatever other roles we fill. It’s not healthy to be dependent on others to give us purpose.

restructure writes, But identical twins have the same race and gender.

Of course identical twins have the same race and gender because they have the same genetics. That’s what makes them identical. And that’s also what makes them so important for behavioral studies. By comparing identical twins to fraternal twins, non twin siblings and random members of the population it is possible to determine the average contribution of genetics to behavior. The fact that the twins being studied are identical makes the rest of your comment irrelevant to this discussion.

I don’t see where your comments have added anything new to the discussion. But I’ll be happy to restate my own points.

You are aware of the income gap between men and women, right? And how women will get pushed into ‘softer’ areas, often ones that pay less?

Sowell is a highly respected economist who has studied these issues extensively. In the video I linked, he disagrees with your assumptions. He states the conclusions rather than making the whole argument. He makes the argument in his book.
“Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality”, Thomas Sowell, 1984. Nor is he going against the grain. His is a fairly standard economic view.

Frankly, it doesn’t really matter what ‘natural tendencies’ lead us towards, because not everyone has them to the same degree.

That people aren’t clones doesn’t change the importance of natural tendencies. They are still the primary force in shaping our behaviors. And as already mentioned, some tendencies are fairly universal.

And these people are failed by a culture that pressures them to be something other than what their individual personalities lead them towards.

Since behavior is largely genetic blaming society is pointless. I would argue that it is feminists who are pressuring women to go against their own nature.

if these differences are indeed innate, they don’t need to be reinforced. Women and men would still behave differently even if our culture didn’t teach us that.

Ok.

In fact, the reinforcement might be bad by making us TOO different.

Since behavior is largely genetic, reinforcement is unlikely to make that much difference either way.

From personal experience, I’m too submissive. Regardless of if this is by nature or nurture, this trait has been bad for me, by not allowing me to ensure my own needs are met. On the other side, men can become too aggressive.

I don’t know you personally so that may well be. Some people do have destructive tendencies. All I can say is “Know Thyself”.

And while the different roles that have been assigned to men and women both have value, it doesn’t matter which gender does them.

I’ve washed plenty of dishes and changed plenty of diapers. It didn’t hurt my feelings. But that doesn’t mean it’s the best arrangement.

==================

Ultimately, I think it’s ultimately an issue of nature, economics and opportunity costs. If you want “A” then you have to give up “B”. That’s not discrimination or privilege. That’s reality. But some people don’t want to give up “B” to get “A”. They want to have everything their own way and blame others when they can’t. I think the following video broadens the issue a little.

Since you are racist, you are attempting to argue that “most behavior is genetic” to support your view that black people, Latin@s, and indigenous people have less wealth on average than white people because of some kind of hereditary characteristic that is linked to success in a meritocracy. However, another hereditary characteristic that affects people’s financial success in a non-meritocracy is their melanin production. In this sense, genetics does contribute to behaviour, but it’s because having dark skin affects your success in a racist society. In other words, twin studies using identical twins of the same race and gender do not prove that racism and sexism don’t exist, as what is compared is genetics keeping race and gender constant.

On top of this, the 80% (or whatever number) is not meaningful, in that you cannot use it to argue that a person’s success is only 20% due to environmental influences. If a white male American millionaire is cloned and the baby grows up in a war-torn country where he incurs permanent brain damage and ends up with an amputated leg, and there is no health care and he is poor, you cannot argue that the difference in outcome between the individuals is only 20% due to environmental influence. The vast majority of the difference in financial success is due to environmental influence. Physics (as in non-genetic cause-and-effect phenomena) trumps biology (as in only genetic causes).

Calling me a “racist” doesn’t negate a study on the genetic basis for behavior. And if you have to resort to such an extreme example as “permanent brain damage” to argue that environment trumps genetics then I think my point has been made.

fred Says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Calling me a “racist” doesn’t negate a study on the genetic basis for behavior.

……………

Restructure is 100% accurate in calling you a White racist. There is no other other word to describe you.

Have you ever examined the discursive content of your comments throughout this whole Blog?

You are indeed by definition just that—-A racist—-one who is so pre-occupied by “logic”, “stats”, “behaviour”, “genetics”, “eugenics”—-all in efforts to explain away the experiences of non-White European / racialized Others while “normalizing and exalting” Whiteness.

Historically, what racial/social group has traveled the earth in conducting anthropological studies—-measuring cranium size, penis size, vagina size, categorizing, labeling and putting people – cultures in hierarchies in efforts to prove the “basis” of “behaviour”, “superior intelligence” and “morality”? Hmmm?

Since you are a member of that group—-I could faithfully put into the same category of behaviour.

This comic presents a false dichotomy. A man doesn’t have to either ask a woman out straight away or else be a manipulative “nice guy”. There’s a balance to be struck. Obviously being “good friends” for months on end is dickheadish, but you can have a period of friendship first, in fact i think this is best as it gives you time to really know if you want to go with the person.

A guy should be able to tell from body language/eye contact/how much she laughs at his jokes/how she respons to physical play etc. whether or not he has a chance. “Nice guys” realise they’re not getting these cues but continue on anyway. Idiots don’t wait to get these cues and ask straight away.